|
Boost : |
From: Chris Lattner (clattner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-01 15:33:28
David's characterization is somewhat correct, but is also a bit
simplistic. The LLVM project does certainly use templates (including
partial specialization etc), but we prefer to keep this as an
implementation detail in a library. Exposing "complex" template code
through the public interface of a library generally make the library
"scary" to those developers who don't consider themselves to be C++
gurus. This design point also reduces build time for the LLVM code
itself.
-Chris
http://nondot.org/sabre
http://llvm.org
On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Larry Evans <cppljevans_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> On 09/01/07 13:30, David A. Greene wrote:
>> On Saturday 01 September 2007 13:12, Larry Evans wrote:
>>
>>> It maybe too late now, but I'd think boost's wave might have
>>> saved them some time in writing the preprocessor.
>>
>> Agreed. I've been involved with llvm for about six months now and
>> there's a
>> general fear of using anything from Boost, or templates in
>> general. I'm not
>> meaning to slam the llvm developers. What they've done is really
>> quite good.
>> But they have certain constraints (embedded, low memory, etc.) that
>> makes them
>> hesitant to use more advanced C++ techniques.
>
> My initial reponse to this is "aren't they optimizing first, then
> correcting?" IOW, why not use templates to ease getting a correct
> compiler, and *then* worry about satisfying the constraints? Of
> course,
> after thinking a bit, I'd guess that's probably oversimplifying.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk